Yes, Virginia, there is scuba diving in East Tennessee.

Your archetypal "Tea Party" candidate? The New Republic:

Since winning the Republican nomination for Joe Biden’s Senate seat in Delaware (thanks in part to $150,000 in out-of-state Tea Party money), Christine O’Donnell has provided virtually all of the race’s rhetorical oxygen. She has been asked to explain why it took her 15 years to get her college degree; what exactly happened when, in high school, she and a witch had a midnight meal “on a satanic altar;” how serious she was when she campaigned publicly to stop people from masturbating; and why the IRS has taken a lien on her property for unpaid taxes.

I'm still waiting to learn her answers.

John B. Judis:

The Tea Party is an accretion of various movements of the past decades, including the Christian right and, as Wilentz shows, the older anti-Communist Right. But it fits above all into the framework of American populism, which has always had right-wing and left-wing variants, and which is rooted in a middle class cri de coeur—that we who do the work and play by the rules are being exploited by parasitic bankers and speculators and/or by shiftless, idle white trash, negroes, illegal immigrants, fill in the blank here.

There's an ugly mood in the political air these days. Times are hard and the public is looking for someone to blame. The tea partiers are blaming -- who? Mostly, they blame Democratic politicians, despite most of the perceived problems occurring on a Republican watch. Regardless, my sense is that the "tea party movement" is more about scapegoating than anything else. And whether it is scapegoating to further Republican or Libertarian aims, this movement is certainly taking advantage of a weak economy to further such right wing partisan goals.

What worries me is that, the last time a national public was looking for someone to blame for bad economic times, we ended up with the Germans electing Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. And the internal group that got blamed for the disastrous German economy was, well, you know. While it hasn't happened yet, the ever-cyclical nature of anti-semitism suggests that, sooner or later, someone's going to try to lay it all on the Jews. Or the Muslims, or the Catholics, or the Blacks. And so forth.

The irony is that, despite the apparent middle class domination of the "tea party movement," that same middle class is unlikely to be the beneficiary of the the "movement's" success: "What’s undeniable, though, is that those most likely to benefit from right-wing middle class insurgencies are not the embattled middle classes, but the business interests and the wealthy associated with the Republican Party. That was certainly true of the 'Reagan Revolution,' which put an end to the movement toward income equality that had begun in the 1930s. So who benefits from these movements is not the same as who controls them on a day-to-day basis."

There's an ugly mood in the air.

Henley Bridge closes Jan. 3 for at least 2 years: But where will they have Boomsday?

Every homeowner's nightmare.

School bus driver charged with drunken driving: She was en route to pick up kids for Cedar Bluff Elementary School. Is a story like this why my kids don't ride the bus?

Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair:

[I]t’s an interesting thought experiment to imagine what the first two years of a McCain-Palin partnership in the White House might have produced. There would probably have been no stimulus bill, and the country’s economic condition would be no better (and probably worse). General Motors and Chrysler would have been allowed to go bankrupt rather than helped to emerge into a state of healthiness, as they may well be doing. There would have been no significant new regulation of the financial industry. The Bush tax cuts for those Americans with the highest incomes—something McCain had opposed before reversing himself—would have been extended. There would have been only modest health-insurance reform, at best—McCain’s proposals were Republican boilerplate and meant for use in the campaign, never a serious program. Perhaps there would have been greater progress on immigration, though McCain had already abandoned that issue, and it’s easier to imagine his taking the more nativist stance he has since adopted. There would be no Supreme Court justices Kagan and Sotomayor, but there would likely be two more conservative justices, and the days of Roe v. Wade would be numbered. There would be no troop drawdown in Iraq. The United States might well have bombed or blockaded Iran in response to that country’s flawed election last year, or in response to its nuclear program. There would have been serial feuds between aides to the president and vice president, but the fact that Vice President Palin had an independent power base, far larger and more enthusiastic than McCain’s own, would have limited what President McCain could do about it. The “Ground Zero mosque” dispute would probably have arisen anyway, and McCain might have been hard put to do anything but side with the opponents. The Palin-family soap opera would now be daily fodder for the national press rather than mainly the tabloids.

In that the Republicans/Tea Partiers are trying to regain congressional power by blasting the current Administration, it's valid and important to consider where the country would be had McCain won the election in 2008. Based just on Chrysler and GM going under and the resulting massive additional unemployment, we'd be in even worse shape. A McCain win would have meant Bush redux; with the country sliding down the recession slope at an ever-increasing pace back in late 2008, a McCain administration likely would have continued the descent, at a terrible cost to even more Americans.

Another thought: I am not, and have never been, a particular supporter for the Obama Administration. However, I have been saying for years that what we need are statesmen: public servants who have the courage of their convictions, even in the face of powerful opposition. In that context, the Administration and the congressional Democrats who have cast supporting votes -- even at the potential cost of their jobs -- have been acting like statesmen. We should remember that.

Man shoots couch during dispute: Guns don't kill people; stupid people kill people.

Are the couch's injuries life-threatening?

Study: Health reform will save Tennesseans $2.7B. Gee, I thought that health care law spelled the end of life as we know it.

E.J. Dionne, Jr.:

The country doesn't need this class war, and it is irrational in any case. Practically no one, least of all Obama, is questioning the basics of the market system or proposing anything more than somewhat tighter economic regulations—after the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression—and rather modest tax increases on the wealthy.

But even these steps are apparently too much for those financing all the television ads, which should lead voters to ask themselves: Who is paying for this? What do they really want? And who gave them the right to buy an election?

Why, the Supreme Court did.

Mississippi Judge Jails Lawyer for Refusing to Recite Pledge of Allegiance. Here is the Contempt Order, too.

What blows me away is that, in this day and age, such nonsense still happens. Being able to refuse to recite a pledge of allegiance is fundamental to our constitutional liberties. Props to this attorney, who is willing to go to jail to protect this basic right.

And by the way, this issue was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1943: "'[N]o official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.' West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1187, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943). A state therefore may not compel any person to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag." Sherman v. Community Consol. School Dist. 21 of Wheeling Tp., 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992).

Requiring the lawyer to recite the Pledge upon pain of contempt and jailing is a clear violation of well-settled constitutional law. The Mississippi Chancellor should know better.

Well, I never thought I'd see this: Some in G.O.P. Find Soft Spot for Bill Clinton. I don't know. As a consistent Clinton supporter during his Administrations, I can still remember quite easily the Republican vitriol manifested by such memories as the Lewinsky/impeachment charade, Whitewater, Paula What's-her-name, and the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush" bumper stickers. Now, if this article suggests a Republican desire for governance from the middle, well, that would be news.

The spate of Obama Administration reform initiatives made political sense to the Administration; it is accepted wisdom that, if you don't get your legislative agenda done within the first year or so of an administration, then it won't get done at all, because of mid-term elections and then the the presidential re-election campaign. But I am reminded of Hal Holbrook's line from All the President's Men: "You build from the outer edges and you go step by step. If you shoot too high and miss, then everybody feels more secure."

In other words, while politically difficult, if not impossible, gradual reform is better than sudden and profound change. So, while legislation such as health care reform may be societally or philosophically laudable, such intitiatives may well be politically damaging or downright suicidal. While I take no real position on such legislation, there used to be a word for doing the right thing at the risk of one's personal interests: statesmanship.

Shooting themselves in the foot: It's not enough that all these lenders are foreclosing on homes and ruining their borrowers' lives. It's not enough that they can't get out of their own way long enough to effectively process loan modifications, for which they have received (a lot of) federal money. Now, these same lenders have screwed up the foreclosure paperwork so badly that many of them are suspending their foreclosure sales, putting yet another category of would-be homeowner into potential eternal limbo.

Can you imagine how much worse it would be if there were no government regulation at all?

Co-counsel every lawyer needs: Superboy. And Superman.

Hmm. I wonder whether the judge would consider his uniform inappropriate courtroom attire?

A La Carte Government in action? Fire Department allows house to burn because resident had failed to pay $75 subscription fee.

Yeah, I know he didn't pay the fee -- he says he forgot to do it -- but it seems awfully heartless to literally stand by, watch the guy's house burn (killing three pets inside, by the way) and only swing into action to prevent the fire from spreading to a paid-up neighbor's house. What if people had been inside? Would the fire department still have refused to take action?

This sounds encouraging: New Israeli treatment kills HIV cells.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face: Some 25,000 Palestinians at work building Jewish settlements. Here's what's important, according a one worker on these jobs: "We have lived with Israelis and we will have to live together in the future. I'm pleased that I will be able to make a living,"

Exactly.

Photoshop magic:

Before:








And After:










This photo is from a rebreather dive Glenn Reynolds and I did in 2006, off Cobalt Coast in Grand Cayman. Glenn's wrote and videoed about it in Popular Mechanics. Guess who the photographer/videographer was? The intrepid diver is Nat Robb of InDepth Watersports in Grand Cayman. To learn how to do it yourself, see this YouTube video.

Just, uh, unearthed: In the year 3000, remembering the Beatles: John, Paul, Greg, and Scottie (Pippin). What they were best known for? Their seminal album, "Sgt. Pet Sounds and the Spiders From Aja." This is important history, folks. Pay attention!

Gotta get that record....

Glenn Reynolds links to this naive and somewhat misleading article by Larry Ribstein about "the growing problem of poor people facing civil cases without lawyers...." The article refers to one example of a Florida resident seeking worker's compensation benefits by using a non-lawyer representative or advocate in court. The Florida Bar is seeking penalties from the non-lawyer for unauthorized practice of law. The article apparently considers this situation as an example of "the disgrace of the legal services market."

As a Tennessee lawyer, I can say that there are plenty of lawyers who would have taken that Florida resident's case, if it had been in Tennessee. And the premise of the article -- that hourly fees of $150 and greater is beyond the reach of most people -- doesn't even apply to many civil legal actions, including worker's compensation. In many types of civil cases it is just flat wrong to suggest that lower income people (or anyone else, for that matter) can't hire a lawyer unless they've got big bucks for an up front retainer. What I'm talking about is contingent fees.

As opposed to many lawyers, most trial lawyers don't charge a client up front for many types of legal matters. In personal injury, worker's compensation and Social Security Disability cases, we here at Slovis, Rutherford & Weinstein essentially never charge cash on the barrel head, nor do we ask for any kind of expense or cost deposit, if the client can't afford it. Thus, in the great majority of such cases, a client will get the legal services they need, and will pay an attorney's fee and expense reimbursement only if the lawyer gets a recovery for the client.

Now, sometimes a lawyer who doesn't want to be mean and tell a potential client there's no case will quote a high fee as a "nice" way of sending the client off to another lawyer. I don't favor that practice, but I acknowledge that it has happened and does happen, from time to time.

It is also true that there are types of civil legal issues where lawyers must charge a retainer and/or hourly fee if they are to be paid at all. Besides legal aid, there are many lawyers that do cases pro bono, or free, as a way of giving back. There are also a lot of young, hungry lawyers who may take the case for a discounted fee. The persistent person is going to find a lawyer.

Mr. Ribstein proposes "the development of a legal information market that can serve the millions of people who now have little recourse but self-help. Such a market would give the middle and lower-middle class ready access to paralegals trained to handle lower-level cases and expanded legal offerings of legal software and forms." Mr. Ribstein, an academic and law professor whose biography reflects a background in "corporate, securities and partnership law, constitutional law, bankruptcy, film, the internet, family law, professional ethics and licensing, uniform laws, choice of law, and jurisdictional competition," badly underestimates the difficulty and complexity of non-lawyers trying to be effective (i.e., successful) representing themselves in court and most legal matters. He also gives entirely too much credit to paralegals who have very uneven levels of education and experience, as well as "legal software and forms" that often do not even apply in a particular jurisdiction. Reliance on such resources can lead to disaster -- and more legal expense -- for the client.

As an example, I had a client a couple of years ago who downloaded and used for an elderly and infirm relative a power of attorney form he found on the Internet. Unfortunately, it was not a durable power of attorney. That means that if the elderly subject of the POA is at some later time found to be not competent, then the power of attorney, at that time, becomes of no force. Which is, of course, exactly what happened to that client. Property conveyances to the client under the POA were disputed and voided. Two years later, he has incurred thousands of dollars in legal fees to try to obtain the property he thought he already owned. All of his troubles could have been avoided had he used a lawyer to prepare the power of attorney. I usually charge under $100 for one. You do the math.

The reason lawyers have to be trained, pass the bar exam, and be admitted to practice is that our society believes that legal representatives ought to be, well, qualified. Licensing laws are not in place to protect lawyers' jobs; they are there to protect the public.

I have no problem whatsoever in people having access to legal forms and information if they want to represent themselves. The strong likelihood is that they will not be successful in any litigation where they have to face off against an trained, experienced lawyer. But if they want to take that chance with eyes open, have at it.

I do have a big problem with untrained, un-experienced lay people representing litigants, however. No reasonable client wants to place his faith in a legal "representative" who is unqualified to represent him.